What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 22 Apr 2010 02:32 On Apr 22, 3:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 8:42 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > YP, PD, Artful, > > > Heres my opinion. You are all right and wrong about certain aspects. > > (Not to say that I'm right about any.) > > > Photons DO have mass (equivalent to their energy). Photons DO NOT have > > rest mass as they cannot be at rest. > > > E=Mc^2 and E=hf are equivalent and they BOTH APPLY to photons. Again, > > M here is NOT rest mass and its NOT zero. I dont know what the > > correct term for this mass is, so call it whatever you like. As such, > > P = h/lambda = hf/c = E/c = Mc are all correct for a photon (but not > > applicable for anything at v<c). > > > Formulas containing v, gamma or rest or invariant mass apply ONLY > > to objects or systems where v<c; they do not apply to photons. That > > doesnt mean that a formula containing mass is wrong for photons, but > > in this case mass is NOT rest mass. > > ------------------- > waht you said above is quite ok Yeup > now th emoment you agfree > that even non rest mass > has mass thatis not zero Why agree with something wrong? > YOU DID A GEATE STEP TWARDS ME!! > now let me tell you the aime of myabove > po post: Your aim is to find a way to do something worthwhile with your life and contribute to mankind. A noble ambition .. but just posting nonsense from your ignorance is not a way to do it. Nor is copyrighting everything you ask or say as though it is significant > IT IS TO MAKE THE NEW UNPRECEDENTD FORWARDS STEP > AND UNDERSTANDING THAT > > THERE IS JSUTONE KIND OF MASS !! Nothing new or unprecedented about that .. we only have one dimension of mass already. > IT WILL TAKE **TIME** > **AND WORK* > BUT AT LAST PEOPLE WILL INTERNALIZE EVEN THAT INNOVATION !! Its not an innovation at all > and they will internalize the more abstract **golden rule** that > > NO MASS-- NO REAL PHYSICS !!! NO TIME - NO REAL PHYSICS .. you can do physics without mass. > it will save mankind > billions of dollars and human resources > and indispensable** invaluable* - TIME!! > (for instance the huge waist on > 'massless' physical entities etc etc !!) Bullshit > old Copyright by old Yehiel .Porat > that must be (Oh Dear Gosh!!.. ) 'some fighter ""(:-) No .. just a stubborn ignorant fool of the worst kind.
From: artful on 22 Apr 2010 02:35 On Apr 22, 3:59 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 8:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 12:39 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Porat, I think you are suffering from an idea that is hobbling you. > > > > ------------------ > > > nothing is hobbling me > > > ------------------ > > > just a moment i am going to see inthe dictionary what is hobbling > > > -(:-) > > > --no i ddint find > > > anyway lets talk physics argument > > > specific arguments and not abstract hand wavings > > > -------------> You apparently think that when you see an equation like E=mc^2, that > > > > each of those variables can be attributed to a word like "energy" or > > > > "mass", > > > > -------------- > > > not energy or mass?? > > > !! > > > so what else for instance (:-) > > > As I told you, Porat, the E in E=mc^2 is *rest energy*. The E in E^2 = > > (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 is total energy. Same symbol, two completely > > different meanings. This is why context is important. It is also how > > you confuse yourself by looking at these two expressions and thinking > > they are referring to the same thing. > > > > -------------- > > > > and furthermore each of those words can mean one and only one> thing. So you see "m" and think "mass" and you furthermore believe > > > > that "mass" can have one and only one meaning, > > > > -------- > > > that exactly waht i want to prove that > > > tereis jsut one kind of mass > > > There is no argument that can *prove* that. It is not a matter of > > argument. It is a matter of defining the symbol in the context where > > it is used. If you want to know what a symbol means, you ASK what it > > means in that context. No amount of arguing will change the meaning of > > that symbol in that context. > > > > BECAUSE > > > unlike literature > > > if you are going to invent another kind of mass > > > the burden of prof is **on you** > > > and that is exactly our discussion about !! > > > It is not a matter of invention. It is a matter of *defining* the term > > where it is used. > > > > -------------- > > > > and that it is the> meaning you have in mind. Likewise, you see "E" and think "energy" and > > > > that "energy" can mean one and only one thing and it is what you have > > > > ---------------- > > > why obfuscate > > > we are dealing now about energy of EM radiation > > > do you have something else in your mind ?? > > > There is still more than one kind of energy there. There is rest > > energy, which for EM radiation is zero. There is total energy, which > > for EM radiation is not zero. You see? > > > > ------- > > > > > This is simply not true. You cannot oversimplify physical laws to make > > > > them conform to your understanding. > > > > -------------- > > > one of he greatest tasks of mine is to simplify > > > physics > > > Nature is as simple as possible, but no simpler. You are trying to > > make it simpler than it is. > > > > it seemst aht one of your intentions is to complicate it > > > btw > > > i hope that you got already that > > > one of the secretes of good analysis > > > is to ry and dis-mental a complicated probel to its > > > sub smaller problems !!! > > > > ------------- > > > > > When you see an equation like E=mc^2, each of those terms means > > > > something that may be dependent on the context, > > > > ----------- > > > wrong !! > > > that formula s power is in its being universal !! > > > That is flat wrong, Porat. The meaning of a formula depends on the > > context and the definition of the terms used in it. > > This is PRECISELY the point I've made over and over and over to you. > > For example, you see the formula p=mv and you have the belief that it > > is universal. It is not. It is not even true for massive objects that > > are traveling at high speeds, and it is in no case true for light > > (using c for v). > > That formula is NOT universal. > > Another example is Fdt = del(p). > > That formula is NOT universal. > > Another example is KE = (1/2)mv^2. > > That formula is certainly not universal. > > > If you were led to the impression that these expressions are > > universal, you were mistaught. They are not universal. > > > > ---------------- > > > and the E in one> equation might mean something completely different than the same E in > > > > a different equation. It is therefore extremely important to not look > > > > at equations in stand-alone fashion, but to use them only in context, > > > > so pleae tell us what is specifically > > > our context about mass of the EM rqdiation !! > > > ---------------- > > > > > where the meaning of those variables is carefully explained along with > > > > the presentation of the equation. This means work, but if you don't do > > > > it, you end up being mistaken about what you're looking at. Insisting > > > > --------------- > > > why do you speak riddles > > > why not talk specifically > > > after all we are not just philosophers but try > > > to be practical physicists !! > > > that bring some concrete use to our places > > > ------------ > > > ------ > > > > > that the variables can mean one and only one thing only makes the > > > > mistake a deeper one. > > > > ok take the lead tomake it > > > pinted to specific direstions > > > like > > > does energy of EM has mass or not > > > does the phootnhas mass or not > > > but still > > > dont dsiperse it to a hundred directions > > > because i tild you oneof the secretes of good analysis ie to > > > concentrate -to be targeted to some specific > > > problem forinsatnce as i did it in my op post > > > how about it ??? (:-) > > > if you like to take some break for breading > > > lets take some break !! > > > and may be others (not including Artful (:-) > > > can get in meanwhile > > > and say what they think and examine all about it > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------- > > Dear PD !! > you told me > and i told you !! (:-) > now let others to think about it !!! We have .. the rest of us understand .. you are still floundering and are unwilling to learn. > because it seems that a debate can * never* be decided just between > two peole There's more than two here > and just at once > sometimes Time must do its' work' as well !! > (you cant consider say Artful &Co.!! as 'people ' (:-) I really don't understand why you are so hostile toward me, other than jealousy because I udnerstand physics far better than you will ever hope to. > yet the last thing i would like is to see > > that someone else(crooks ) (say people like Artful ..) some day will > take all my credits > for themselves (:-)!! You're paranoid .. no-one wants to steal your nonsense.
From: Y.Porat on 22 Apr 2010 15:58 On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:56 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Artful, PD, > > > > > > > If you dont mind, lets elaborate on the invariant mass of a closed > > > > > > system of particles (which includes both massive and massless > > > > > > particles <photons>). These particles would have arbitrary velocities > > > > > > (not applicable to photons of course) and directions within the > > > > > > system. How do we define the invariant mass of such a system? > > > > > > First, what it clearly is not is the sum of the rest masses of the > > > > > constituents of the system, which in this case would be zero, since > > > > > the rest masses of the photons are zero. What may not be obvious, but > > > > > is also true, is that the invariant mass is not necessarily the sum of > > > > > the relativistic masses of the photons either! > > > > > > The way to find the invariant mass is very simple: > > > > > m^2 = (sum[E])^2 - (sum[p])^2 > > > > > ------------------ > > > > very simple (:-)indeed > > > > but i showed you that p=mc > > > > No, Porat, if you'll look, I've told you that p=mc describes nothing > > > another lie: > > No sir. mc appears nowhere as a momentum. > > > > > it is part of your formula with > > > E ^2 =mc^2 ^2 plus (pc)^2 !! > > No, it is not! > The mc^2 term and the pc term are *different* and come from different > sources. > You cannot say, "Well, if I make p=mc, then it looks like the mc^2 > term, so p=mc must be right." It is NOT right. The two terms are > *different*. > > There is nothing in nature that has momentum mc. Nothing. > > > so it seves that formula > > and you cant > > MAKE FOR AS NOTING RELEVANT !! > > AND I SHOWED YOU THAT > > > pc is dimentionally mc^2 !! > > No, it is not. They are both dimensionally [M][L]^2/[T]^2. > However the two terms are not equal and should not be set equal to > each other. > Two terms have to have the same dimensions to be added together, but > this does NOT mean the terms are equal. > > Dimensionally, KE=(1/2)mv^2 and PE(grav)=mgh and PE(elec)=q(V2-V1) are > all of common dimensions, but those energies are NOT the same and > cannot be set equal to each other. > You CANNOT take (1/2)mv^2 = q(V2-V1) and conclude that the mass of an > object is 2q(V2-V1)/v^2!! > That would be STUPID. > > Having common dimensions does NOT make quantities equal. > > There is no object that has momentum mc. > > I cannot believe that you do not know the first thing about units. > ------------------- that is a new level of impertinanace !! mc^2 and pc are COMBINED WITH THE PLUS SIGN ON THE SAME LINE OF THE FORMULA WE AR E NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIER QUANTITIES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR PROPEERTIES THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THEM IN THE SAME KLINE OF THE FORMULA WITH A LUS SIGN ON THE SAME LINE !! COULD YOU COMBINE THEM INCASE FOR INSTANTANCE THAT ONE UNIT WAS MISSING THERE ?? you cant combine them unless they have exactly the same unit or else you combine potatoes with oranges !! 2 pd i have another question for you IF YOU ARE ALLOWING MANY KINDS OF TH E KILOGRAM MASS of the photon energy * WHY NOT ALLOW MANY KINDS OF 'METERS' ***of the photon energy ** dont you understand that if you have no a 100 percent constant unit you cannot do any physical calculation !! you DO can multiply that constant unit by difFernt MULTIPLIERS BUT YOU CAN not AFFORD CHANGING MKS or cgs or any sytem unit by **CHANGING ONLY ONE OF THE 3 UNITS * and morover you cant do it on the** same line of the formula --for one of its term YES !! and fhe other **on the same line** NO !! IF YOU LIKE TO CHANGE YOU HAVE TO CAN CHANEG ALL THE 3 OF THEM !! but not only n ust one of them not to speak that for energy with the constant speed of light no gamma is valid !! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------- unless you change all the units as one block AT THE SAME FORMULA > > > > it cant be otherwise > > since it is linearliy added to the mc ^2aprtof the formula !!! > > 'your formula that you broughjt tothis discussion > > soyou cant bring it while you thin it served your demagogy > > and overlook it > > while suddenly (by my heplp ) it comes against you > > to show that even momentum has mass > > and it cant be turned idiotically > > to 'zero mass' > > it is a live and kicking nonzero mass !! > > ------------- > > > > in our universe. This formula for momentum is flat wrong. It does not > > > work for *anything*. > > > > > AND NOTHING THERE TO MULTIPLY IT BY ZERO !! > > > > NORE GAMMA FACTOR TO MAKE IT > > > > DIFFERENT *QUANTITATIVELY* FROM REST MASS > > > > > ??!! > > > > so now you **invented **different masses > > > > in different circumstances > > > > but we see that **quantitatively* you have no base for your new > > > > invention ... > > > > yet > > > > bingo i stated to understand you !!: > > > > while one sort of mass is going to a wedding > > > > it has a happy face > > > > and while i t is going to a funeral > > > > it gets a sad face > > > > so we got here > > > > a new kind of chameleon mass ---- > > > > > --- A** CHAMELEON MASS **!! > > > > from the *chameleon* school directed by PD !! > > > > what are those CIRCUMSTANCES ?? > > > > it is ONLY for the genius (Shakespear )PD to decide !! > > >------------------------------------------ > > > Nonsense, Porat. > > > you are the one thatr making nonsense > > much worse than that - cheating !! > > > It's all pretty basic stuff, and it's all in pretty> low level textbooks. > > > VERY VERY LOW (:-) > > THE PLACE THAT I BELONG ...(:-) > > anyone can easily smell your demagogism > > that is not science !! > > > I've not made it up, and it's not a new invention > > just prove it that you ddint invent it > > and still it will not be a prove that it is rigth!! > > > > of any kind, and it isn't really up for a vote or an argument on a > > > newsgroup. You either learn it or you don't. > > > > > i just wonder what else and how many new > > > > circumstances and the related kinds of mass !! (:-) > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > SO > > > > WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ??!! > > > > > > where the sum[E] is the scalar sum of the energies of the > > > > > constituents, and > > > > > sum[p] is the vector sum of the momenta of the constituents. > > > > > > > Furthermore, how would one determine the center of mass for this > > > > > > system? Which individual masses of the particles should one consider > > > > > > when doing this? Are photons taken into account for the center of > > > > > > mass? > > > > > > It's not necessary to choose the center of mass frame for this system, > > > > > as the invariant mass is invariant, independent of frame. > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > Assuming now there are nuclear reactions taking place in this system > > > > > > (which we defined as closed => all products of these reactions are > > > > > > considered part of the system), how would these reactions affect the > > > > > > invariant mass, center of mass, momentum and total energy of this > > > > > > system? > > > > > --------------------------- > > > dont hand wave > > just show us a specific example > > in which there is > > 'circumstantial' mass > > and in what specific circumstances ??!-- > > that is different by anything from rest mass!?? > > I've already done that. Reread what I wrote. > > > > > or more than one circumstance > > that was used by somebody else > > than you !! > > dont send me to text books > > just bring here examples > > If you want proof of other people using these, then you need to go to > THEIR writings. I'd be happy to point you to where YOU can find the > proof. Don't ask me to cut your meat for you and put the spoon in your > mouth. > > > it should not be difficult to do it > > if it is really exist > > or widely used !! > > It IS widely used. Books are widely used. You are among the few people > in the world who simply refuse to use what other people widely use. > That is YOUR problem, Porat. Overcome it. > > > > > and in what way > > it is different from rest mass > > > that is differnt then rest mass > > or else you are cheating !! > > No sir. You do not get your way by whining, wheedling, cajoling, > daring, or taunting. Suck it up and do it. > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 16:24 On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:56 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Artful, PD, > > > > > > > > If you dont mind, lets elaborate on the invariant mass of a closed > > > > > > > system of particles (which includes both massive and massless > > > > > > > particles <photons>). These particles would have arbitrary velocities > > > > > > > (not applicable to photons of course) and directions within the > > > > > > > system. How do we define the invariant mass of such a system? > > > > > > > First, what it clearly is not is the sum of the rest masses of the > > > > > > constituents of the system, which in this case would be zero, since > > > > > > the rest masses of the photons are zero. What may not be obvious, but > > > > > > is also true, is that the invariant mass is not necessarily the sum of > > > > > > the relativistic masses of the photons either! > > > > > > > The way to find the invariant mass is very simple: > > > > > > m^2 = (sum[E])^2 - (sum[p])^2 > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > very simple (:-)indeed > > > > > but i showed you that p=mc > > > > > No, Porat, if you'll look, I've told you that p=mc describes nothing > > > > another lie: > > > No sir. mc appears nowhere as a momentum. > > > > it is part of your formula with > > > > E ^2 =mc^2 ^2 plus (pc)^2 !! > > > No, it is not! > > The mc^2 term and the pc term are *different* and come from different > > sources. > > You cannot say, "Well, if I make p=mc, then it looks like the mc^2 > > term, so p=mc must be right." It is NOT right. The two terms are > > *different*. > > > There is nothing in nature that has momentum mc. Nothing. > > > > so it seves that formula > > > and you cant > > > MAKE FOR AS NOTING RELEVANT !! > > > AND I SHOWED YOU THAT > > > > pc is dimentionally mc^2 !! > > > No, it is not. They are both dimensionally [M][L]^2/[T]^2. > > However the two terms are not equal and should not be set equal to > > each other. > > Two terms have to have the same dimensions to be added together, but > > this does NOT mean the terms are equal. > > > Dimensionally, KE=(1/2)mv^2 and PE(grav)=mgh and PE(elec)=q(V2-V1) are > > all of common dimensions, but those energies are NOT the same and > > cannot be set equal to each other. > > You CANNOT take (1/2)mv^2 = q(V2-V1) and conclude that the mass of an > > object is 2q(V2-V1)/v^2!! > > That would be STUPID. > > > Having common dimensions does NOT make quantities equal. > > > There is no object that has momentum mc. > > > I cannot believe that you do not know the first thing about units. > > ------------------- > > that is a new level of impertinanace !! > > mc^2 and pc are > COMBINED WITH THE PLUS SIGN > ON THE SAME LINE OF THE FORMULA > WE AR E NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIER > QUANTITIES > WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR > PROPEERTIES THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THEM > IN THE SAME KLINE OF THE FORMULA > WITH A LUS SIGN ON THE SAME LINE !! > COULD YOU COMBINE THEM INCASE FOR INSTANTANCE THAT > ONE UNIT WAS MISSING THERE ?? That's exactly what I said. Having the same dimensions does not make the quantities equal. I cannot believe you have no understanding of something so basic. What a total waste of time you are. > > you cant combine them unless they have > exactly the same unit or else > you combine potatoes with oranges !! > 2 > pd > i have another question for you > > IF YOU ARE ALLOWING MANY KINDS OF > TH E KILOGRAM MASS of the photon energy * > > WHY NOT ALLOW > MANY KINDS OF 'METERS' ***of the photon energy ** > > dont you understand that > if you have no a 100 percent constant unit > you cannot do any physical calculation !! > > you DO can multiply that constant unit > by difFernt MULTIPLIERS > BUT YOU CAN not AFFORD > CHANGING MKS or cgs or any sytem unit by > **CHANGING ONLY ONE OF THE 3 UNITS * > and morover > you cant do it on the** same line of the formula --for one of its > term YES !! > and fhe other **on the same line** NO !! > > IF YOU LIKE TO CHANGE > YOU HAVE TO CAN CHANEG ALL THE 3 OF THEM !! > but not only n ust one of them > > not to speak that for energy > with the constant speed of light > no gamma is valid !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------- > > unless you change all the units as one block > AT THE SAME FORMULA > > > > > > it cant be otherwise > > > since it is linearliy added to the mc ^2aprtof the formula !!! > > > 'your formula that you broughjt tothis discussion > > > soyou cant bring it while you thin it served your demagogy > > > and overlook it > > > while suddenly (by my heplp ) it comes against you > > > to show that even momentum has mass > > > and it cant be turned idiotically > > > to 'zero mass' > > > it is a live and kicking nonzero mass !! > > > ------------- > > > > > in our universe. This formula for momentum is flat wrong. It does not > > > > work for *anything*. > > > > > > AND NOTHING THERE TO MULTIPLY IT BY ZERO !! > > > > > NORE GAMMA FACTOR TO MAKE IT > > > > > DIFFERENT *QUANTITATIVELY* FROM REST MASS > > > > > > ??!! > > > > > so now you **invented **different masses > > > > > in different circumstances > > > > > but we see that **quantitatively* you have no base for your new > > > > > invention ... > > > > > yet > > > > > bingo i stated to understand you !!: > > > > > while one sort of mass is going to a wedding > > > > > it has a happy face > > > > > and while i t is going to a funeral > > > > > it gets a sad face > > > > > so we got here > > > > > a new kind of chameleon mass ---- > > > > > > --- A** CHAMELEON MASS **!! > > > > > from the *chameleon* school directed by PD !! > > > > > what are those CIRCUMSTANCES ?? > > > > > it is ONLY for the genius (Shakespear )PD to decide !! > > > >------------------------------------------ > > > > Nonsense, Porat. > > > > you are the one thatr making nonsense > > > much worse than that - cheating !! > > > > It's all pretty basic stuff, and it's all in pretty> low level textbooks. > > > > VERY VERY LOW (:-) > > > THE PLACE THAT I BELONG ...(:-) > > > anyone can easily smell your demagogism > > > that is not science !! > > > > I've not made it up, and it's not a new invention > > > just prove it that you ddint invent it > > > and still it will not be a prove that it is rigth!! > > > > > of any kind, and it isn't really up for a vote or an argument on a > > > > newsgroup. You either learn it or you don't. > > > > > > i just wonder what else and how many new > > > > > circumstances and the related kinds of mass !! (:-) > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > SO > > > > > WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ??!! > > > > > > > where the sum[E] is the scalar sum of the energies of the > > > > > > constituents, and > > > > > > sum[p] is the vector sum of the momenta of the constituents. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, how would one determine the center of mass for this > > > > > > > system? Which individual masses of the particles should one consider > > > > > > > when doing this? Are photons taken into account for the center of > > > > > > > mass? > > > > > > > It's not necessary to choose the center of mass frame for this system, > > > > > > as the invariant mass is invariant, independent of frame. > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > > Assuming now there are nuclear reactions taking place in this system > > > > > > > (which we defined as closed => all products of these reactions are > > > > > > > considered part of the system), how would these reactions affect the > > > > > > > invariant mass, center of mass, momentum and total energy of this > > > > > > > system? > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > dont hand wave > > > just show us a specific example > > > in which there is > > > 'circumstantial' mass > > > and in what specific circumstances ??!-- > > > that is different by anything from rest mass!?? > > > I've already done that. Reread what I wrote. > > > > or more than one circumstance > > > that was used by somebody else > > > than you !! > > > dont send me to text books > > > just bring here examples > > > If you want proof of other people using these, then you need to go to > > THEIR writings. I'd be happy to point you to where YOU can find the > > proof. Don't ask me to cut your meat for you and put the spoon in your > > mouth. > > > > it should not be difficult to do it > > > if it is really exist > > > or widely used !! > > > It IS widely used. Books are widely used. You are among the few people > > in the world who simply refuse to use what other people widely use. > > That is YOUR problem, Porat. Overcome it. > > > > and in what way > > > it is different from rest mass > > > > that is differnt then rest mass > > > or else you are cheating !! > > > No sir. You do not get your way by whining, wheedling, cajoling, > > daring, or taunting. Suck it up and do it. > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------- > >
From: ben6993 on 22 Apr 2010 18:07
On Apr 22, 9:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:56 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Artful, PD, > > > > > > > > > If you dont mind, lets elaborate on the invariant mass of a closed > > > > > > > > system of particles (which includes both massive and massless > > > > > > > > particles <photons>). These particles would have arbitrary velocities > > > > > > > > (not applicable to photons of course) and directions within the > > > > > > > > system. How do we define the invariant mass of such a system? > > > > > > > > First, what it clearly is not is the sum of the rest masses of the > > > > > > > constituents of the system, which in this case would be zero, since > > > > > > > the rest masses of the photons are zero. What may not be obvious, but > > > > > > > is also true, is that the invariant mass is not necessarily the sum of > > > > > > > the relativistic masses of the photons either! > > > > > > > > The way to find the invariant mass is very simple: > > > > > > > m^2 = (sum[E])^2 - (sum[p])^2 > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > very simple (:-)indeed > > > > > > but i showed you that p=mc > > > > > > No, Porat, if you'll look, I've told you that p=mc describes nothing > > > > > another lie: > > > > No sir. mc appears nowhere as a momentum. > > > > > it is part of your formula with > > > > > E ^2 =mc^2 ^2 plus (pc)^2 !! > > > > No, it is not! > > > The mc^2 term and the pc term are *different* and come from different > > > sources. > > > You cannot say, "Well, if I make p=mc, then it looks like the mc^2 > > > term, so p=mc must be right." It is NOT right. The two terms are > > > *different*. > > > > There is nothing in nature that has momentum mc. Nothing. > > > > > so it seves that formula > > > > and you cant > > > > MAKE FOR AS NOTING RELEVANT !! > > > > AND I SHOWED YOU THAT > > > > > pc is dimentionally mc^2 !! > > > > No, it is not. They are both dimensionally [M][L]^2/[T]^2. > > > However the two terms are not equal and should not be set equal to > > > each other. > > > Two terms have to have the same dimensions to be added together, but > > > this does NOT mean the terms are equal. > > > > Dimensionally, KE=(1/2)mv^2 and PE(grav)=mgh and PE(elec)=q(V2-V1) are > > > all of common dimensions, but those energies are NOT the same and > > > cannot be set equal to each other. > > > You CANNOT take (1/2)mv^2 = q(V2-V1) and conclude that the mass of an > > > object is 2q(V2-V1)/v^2!! > > > That would be STUPID. > > > > Having common dimensions does NOT make quantities equal. > > > > There is no object that has momentum mc. > > > > I cannot believe that you do not know the first thing about units. > > > ------------------- > > > that is a new level of impertinanace !! > > > mc^2 and pc are > > COMBINED WITH THE PLUS SIGN > > ON THE SAME LINE OF THE FORMULA > > WE AR E NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIER > > QUANTITIES > > WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR > > PROPEERTIES THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THEM > > IN THE SAME KLINE OF THE FORMULA > > WITH A LUS SIGN ON THE SAME LINE !! > > COULD YOU COMBINE THEM INCASE FOR INSTANTANCE THAT > > ONE UNIT WAS MISSING THERE ?? > > That's exactly what I said. Having the same dimensions does not make > the quantities equal. > > I cannot believe you have no understanding of something so basic. > What a total waste of time you are. > > > > > > > you cant combine them unless they have > > exactly the same unit or else > > you combine potatoes with oranges !! > > 2 > > pd > > i have another question for you > > > IF YOU ARE ALLOWING MANY KINDS OF > > TH E KILOGRAM MASS of the photon energy * > > > WHY NOT ALLOW > > MANY KINDS OF 'METERS' ***of the photon energy ** > > > dont you understand that > > if you have no a 100 percent constant unit > > you cannot do any physical calculation !! > > > you DO can multiply that constant unit > > by difFernt MULTIPLIERS > > BUT YOU CAN not AFFORD > > CHANGING MKS or cgs or any sytem unit by > > **CHANGING ONLY ONE OF THE 3 UNITS * > > and morover > > you cant do it on the** same line of the formula --for one of its > > term YES !! > > and fhe other **on the same line** NO !! > > > IF YOU LIKE TO CHANGE > > YOU HAVE TO CAN CHANEG ALL THE 3 OF THEM !! > > but not only n ust one of them > > > not to speak that for energy > > with the constant speed of light > > no gamma is valid !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------- > > > unless you change all the units as one block > > AT THE SAME FORMULA > > > > > it cant be otherwise > > > > since it is linearliy added to the mc ^2aprtof the formula !!! > > > > 'your formula that you broughjt tothis discussion > > > > soyou cant bring it while you thin it served your demagogy > > > > and overlook it > > > > while suddenly (by my heplp ) it comes against you > > > > to show that even momentum has mass > > > > and it cant be turned idiotically > > > > to 'zero mass' > > > > it is a live and kicking nonzero mass !! > > > > ------------- > > > > > > in our universe. This formula for momentum is flat wrong. It does not > > > > > work for *anything*. > > > > > > > AND NOTHING THERE TO MULTIPLY IT BY ZERO !! > > > > > > NORE GAMMA FACTOR TO MAKE IT > > > > > > DIFFERENT *QUANTITATIVELY* FROM REST MASS > > > > > > > ??!! > > > > > > so now you **invented **different masses > > > > > > in different circumstances > > > > > > but we see that **quantitatively* you have no base for your new > > > > > > invention ... > > > > > > yet > > > > > > bingo i stated to understand you !!: > > > > > > while one sort of mass is going to a wedding > > > > > > it has a happy face > > > > > > and while i t is going to a funeral > > > > > > it gets a sad face > > > > > > so we got here > > > > > > a new kind of chameleon mass ---- > > > > > > > --- A** CHAMELEON MASS **!! > > > > > > from the *chameleon* school directed by PD !! > > > > > > what are those CIRCUMSTANCES ?? > > > > > > it is ONLY for the genius (Shakespear )PD to decide !! > > > > >------------------------------------------ > > > > > Nonsense, Porat. > > > > > you are the one thatr making nonsense > > > > much worse than that - cheating !! > > > > > It's all pretty basic stuff, and it's all in pretty> low level textbooks. > > > > > VERY VERY LOW (:-) > > > > THE PLACE THAT I BELONG ...(:-) > > > > anyone can easily smell your demagogism > > > > that is not science !! > > > > > I've not made it up, and it's not a new invention > > > > just prove it that you ddint invent it > > > > and still it will not be a prove that it is rigth!! > > > > > > of any kind, and it isn't really up for a vote or an argument on a > > > > > newsgroup. You either learn it or you don't. > > > > > > > i just wonder what else and how many new > > > > > > circumstances and the related kinds of mass !! (:-) > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > SO > > > > > > WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ??!! > > > > > > > > where the sum[E] is the scalar sum of the energies of the > > > > > > > constituents, and > > > > > > > sum[p] is the vector sum of the momenta of the constituents. > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, how would one determine the center of mass for this > > > > > > > > system? Which individual masses of the particles should one consider > > > > > > > > when doing this? Are photons taken into account for the center of > > > > > > > > mass? > > > > > > > > It's not necessary to choose the center of mass frame for this system, > > > > > > > as the invariant mass is invariant, independent of frame. > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > > > Assuming now there are nuclear reactions taking place in this system > > > > > > > > (which we defined as closed => all products of these reactions are > > > > > > > > considered part of the system), how would these reactions affect the > > > > > > > > invariant mass, center of mass, momentum and total energy of this > > > > > > > > system? > > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > dont hand wave > > > > just show us a specific example > > > > in which there is > > > > 'circumstantial' mass > > > > and in what specific circumstances ??!-- > > > > that is different by anything from rest mass!?? > > > > I've already done that. Reread what I wrote. > > > > > or more than one circumstance > > > > that was used by somebody else > > > > than you !! > > > > dont send me to text books > > > > just bring here examples > > > > If you want proof of other people using these, then you need to go to > > > THEIR writings. I'd be happy to point you to where YOU can find the > > > proof. Don't ask me to cut your meat for you and put the spoon in your > > > mouth. > > > > > it should not be difficult to do it > > > > if it is really exist > > > > or widely used !! > > > > It IS widely used. Books are widely used. You are among the few people > > > in the world who simply refuse to use what other people widely use. > > > That is YOUR problem, Porat. Overcome it. > > > > > and in what way > > > > it is different from rest mass > > > > > that is differnt then rest mass > > > > or else you are cheating !! > > > > No sir. You do not get your way by whining, wheedling, cajoling, > > > daring, or taunting. Suck it up and do it. > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think we can all guess that one other prolific poster is using an AI program to generate post content. But there would be room, in my opinion, for another AI program on the lines of Porat, if he were not contributing. The sheer stubbornness of him never deviating from his ideas is useful in making one explain things very clearly and repeatedly (though frustrating for you, the explainer). |